P. v. Thompson

Filed 12/4/07 P. v. Thompson CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Christopher Estes, Judge. Affirmed.

Raymond Andrew Thompson, in pro. per., and Julie Schumer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________________________________

Raymond Thompson entered a negotiated plea of no contest to attempted murder and admitted that he personally used a firearm and that the crime was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang. The plea was based on an incident that occurred on November 11, 2006, when defendant, who was affiliated with a gang, shot a man in the hand and in the abdomen. Defendant was sentenced to 18 years in state prison, comprised of the low term of 5 years for attempted murder, 3 years for firearm use and 10 years for the gang enhancement.

Defendant appealed and we appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel filed an opening brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441442, in which no issues were raised. This court then notified defendant that he could personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished us to consider.

In response to our invitation, defendant has submitted a supplemental brief in which he argues that his trial counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance. We disagree.

When defendant appeared in court on March 19, 2007, he was facing four felony charges in this prosecution (Super. Ct. L.A. County, No. MA037159) three counts of attempted premeditated murder and one count of shooting at an occupied vehicle, with further allegations on each count that defendant personally and intentionally used a firearm which proximately caused great bodily injury. A gang allegation was also attached to one of the attempted murder counts (count 1). In addition, defendant was appearing on a non-related prosecution in Los Angeles Superior Court case No. MA037113, in which he had been bound over for trial on charges of false imprisonment, making a criminal threat, and misdemeanor child abuse. Finally, defendant had a trailing probation violation in Los Angeles Superior Court case No. MA036637.

The March 19, 2007 proceedings began with an announcement that a disposition had been reached for a plea on one count of attempted murder (count 1 of case No. MA037159). In exchange, defendant would receive an 18-year sentence, all other charges would be dismissed, and the probation case would be terminated. The prosecutor stated he wanted to make sure the court was aware that only count 1 should have been charged in case No. MA037159, and defendants name should not have been included on counts 2, 3, and 4. At that point, defense counsel stated that count 1 carries with it a life, plus a 25-years-to-life on the gun use and a 10-year kicker for the gang allegation. [] . . . [] . . . Approximately 65 years to li[f]e. The prosecutor next stated, Right. Or at least multiple life, plus 25 years to life on count 1, plus the gang allegation, which would, at a minimum, carry a 15-year minimum eligible parole date.^[1] The court then noted that there was additional exposure on case No. MA037113. Thereafter, defendant stated he understood his exposure if he were to go to trial and entered his plea.

Defendant asserts that he was erroneously charged in counts 2, 3, and 4 of case No. MA037159 in order to wrongfully bolster the maximum exposure causing [defendant] to accept the plea and that defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by inviting the court to consider the false charges. The record does not support these assertions. Although defense counsel may have been incorrect in stating that the gang enhancement could add 10 years to a life sentence, the court, both counsel, and defendant himself understood that defendants exposure on count 1 of case No. MA037159 included two life sentences and that the sentence for which he bargained was 18 years. Defendant has not shown that anything about his trial counsels conduct with respect to the plea failed to meet the standard to be expected of a reasonably competent attorney or that defendant suffered any prejudice as a result of counsels performance. (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 684685 [104 S.Ct. 2052]; People v. Ledesma (1987) 43 Cal.3d 171, 215.) Accordingly, defendants contention of ineffective assistance of counsel must be rejected.

Defendant further appears to be arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. This argument, for which defendant has provided no reasons, cannot be raised in this appeal from defendants plea. (People v. DeVaughn (1977) 18 Cal.3d 889, 895896.)

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellate counsel has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109110; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

MALLANO, Acting P. J.

We concur:

ROTHSCHILD, J.

JACKSON, J.^*

Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.

^[1]The prosecutors explanation of defendants sentence exposure was correct. Where the underlying crime, such as attempted premeditated murder, carries a life sentence, a gang finding does not result in a 10-year sentence enhancement, but rather requires a 15-year period before the defendant may be considered for parole. (People v. Lopez (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1002, 1004.)

^*Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.